BillikenHawkeye
Active Member
These trustees seem pretty short-sided. Even if somehow they were successful in their lawsuit I don't see any reason why the NCAA couldn't just kick PSI out...
Penn st appealing?
- Thread starter BergHawk7
- Start date
BSpringsteen
Well-Known Member
0044 - your friend sounds more like a legal pigeon.
What a moron.
What a moron.
1977Hawkeye
Well-Known Member
Ok, i'm late to the party here and didn't read all 5 pages of this thread so maybe this has been discussed already, but didn't PSU actually agree to whatever sanctions (i.e. "cooperating" with the NCAA)? At least, that's what I thought I had read/heard the day before the sanctions were announced.
And now they're appealing that? Apparently they did NOT agree to any sanctions.
Yeah, I'd say go ahead and give PSU the death penalty then, since they don't want any penalties at all, then. $crew 'em.
And now they're appealing that? Apparently they did NOT agree to any sanctions.
Yeah, I'd say go ahead and give PSU the death penalty then, since they don't want any penalties at all, then. $crew 'em.
bighawkeyedaddy
Well-Known Member
They are trying to say that the people who agreed to the sanctions didn't have the authority to do so. It is a few of the board members that are trying to kick this up.
ssckelley
Well-Known Member
I thought I read somewhere that part of the terms of this punishment was that Penn State was not to appeal the decision? If Penn State wants to fight it out then give them the death penalty.
The Penn State situation has been weird. When you think it cannot get any worse they do something stupid to prove otherwise.
The Penn State situation has been weird. When you think it cannot get any worse they do something stupid to prove otherwise.
ThunderHawk
Well-Known Member
Agreed.
There is a road map for them to follow with regards to a due process violation in the dissent in the Tarkanian case against the NCAA. With the right judge it might work. Problem is that it probably doesnt get them anywhere because all that happens is that it goes right back to the NCAA for a decision. They give them due process and then sanction them. So it is pretty pointless. I think the board members are just mad that the president acted without their approval. Their real beef should be with him not the NCAA.
hawkeyebob62
Well-Known Member
Wrong. The President, under threat of "death penalty", accepted a deal. He and attorney were told if anything "leaked", death penalty was back on table (never mind the numerous leaks prior to Freeh Report). Part of PSUs "plea" was that all things future would be above-board AND would involve Trustees, leadership, etc. But President could not tell Trustees about this deal because of potential "leak". See the circle, here? No?
When PSUs attorney was investigating the death penalty, the NCAA rules website stated that it was only for "multiple offenders". When attempting to cite that later before sending correspondence, that section had disappeared from the website (it subsequently re-appeared at another link). See any problem? No?
The "committee" that met with Emmert consisted of 18 people. One of those was U of Miami/FL President Donna Shalala. Seen any stuff anbout Miami/FL in the news lately? Good, you're not deaf/dumb/blind, you're just anti-PSU. Well, the problem is, there has been NO further investigation started with regard to Miami, a school ALREADY on some form of probation. It has, of course, taken over a year to get any info from UMiami.
Meanwhile, the NCAA conducted ZERO investigation of PSU, they "determined" that the Freeh Report would serve as same. Problem? Freeh group didn't interview McQueary, Paterno, Spanier, Curley or Schultz. And while PSU "commissioned" the Freeh Report, the Trustees never met to "ratify" or sign-off, word just came out of nowhere that they "ratified". But nobody--literally--can say who "ratified". Many Trustees, apparently, now believe the Freeh Report was commissioned merely to justify the firing of Paterno and give PSU the "out" to dissociate form Paterno/family.
Is what happened a tragedy? Absolutely. Did the NCAA overstep and abuse its authority? Yes. The question is, "to what degree?"
ThunderHawk
Well-Known Member
And so it begins. I hope to see many, many shirts and signs in this vein on my TV this season. F U PSU.
ColoradoHAWKEYE
Well-Known Member
Bob 62, you got 4 guys, not whole BOT, crying sour grapes. Psu got what they deserved, they are punished and yet can live to see another day. It doesn't matter if it is a zebra with white stripes or a zebra with black stripes, it's still a zebra. Psu screwed up and tried to cover it up, they got caught.
DodgerHawki
Well-Known Member
You are correct that the Freeh Report didn't
interview McQueary, Spanier, Schulz or Curley. But guess what, the NCAA could investigate for 20 years and never be able to interview any of those guys. Their attorneys would never allow any of them to testify in anything other than a court of law as the result of a subpoena. The NCAA doesn't have the power to compel anyone to testify, that's why most of the serious punishments handed out are the result of criminal investigations where people are compelled to give information.
It can be argued (and the NCAA did) that the Freeh Report was more exhaustive than anything the NCAA could have done. PSU gave Freeh's team access to any PSU employee they wanted to interview and access to any and all documents, including emails going back 14 years. The NCAA would not have had the same access in its own investigation.
One can argue that the NCAA overstepped its bounds. Not sure I agree, but I see where people could think that. From the NCAA's perspective, they can argue that PSU gained a competitive advantage in the last 14 years by protecting its image as a school that "does things the right way," when it's obvious that that was true only to an extent.
Will be interesting to see how this plays out. If Schulz and/or Curley agrees to a plea where they testify and give more context to how decisions were made regarding Sandusky, the punishment received by PSU might seem light.
interview McQueary, Spanier, Schulz or Curley. But guess what, the NCAA could investigate for 20 years and never be able to interview any of those guys. Their attorneys would never allow any of them to testify in anything other than a court of law as the result of a subpoena. The NCAA doesn't have the power to compel anyone to testify, that's why most of the serious punishments handed out are the result of criminal investigations where people are compelled to give information.
It can be argued (and the NCAA did) that the Freeh Report was more exhaustive than anything the NCAA could have done. PSU gave Freeh's team access to any PSU employee they wanted to interview and access to any and all documents, including emails going back 14 years. The NCAA would not have had the same access in its own investigation.
One can argue that the NCAA overstepped its bounds. Not sure I agree, but I see where people could think that. From the NCAA's perspective, they can argue that PSU gained a competitive advantage in the last 14 years by protecting its image as a school that "does things the right way," when it's obvious that that was true only to an extent.
Will be interesting to see how this plays out. If Schulz and/or Curley agrees to a plea where they testify and give more context to how decisions were made regarding Sandusky, the punishment received by PSU might seem light.
DwayneTwill
Well-Known Member
Try, just TRY at least, to 'get it'. Sheesh.
I hope Bob62 and the BOT get their way and there is another investigation. I then hope that the NCAA literally ends PSU's life as they know it, in the same manner that Sandusky and all those that turned a blind eye ended so many children's lives as they knew it. Kick them the **** out of the NCAA. They have the biggest scumbag pieces of **** I have ever seen as fans. They take after their gutless leader JoePed and his cronies.
hawkeyebob62
Well-Known Member
I "get it".
But the fact remains, many on the PSU BoT feel this deal was not "above-boards". They have that right.
Where do you get off playing vigilante and Mr. Moral Superior? Do you even understand the idea that the Freeh report may NOT be 100% perfect, and that some BoT members want further investigation?
I "get" that you think you are intelligent, a moral pinnacle and the best judge of "right" and "wrong". I also get that you are intellectually limited to areas of "black" or "white", and that there is no room for the possibility that the NCAA went beyond the bounds. I get that.
Try to "get" the fact that you are a "check-your-brains-at-the-door" sheep incapable of original thought.
Oh, forget it, just go ahead and let the media tell you how to post.
A
alexzelada
Guest
A talented lawyer can find something wrong with ANY and EVERY contract. They can also find something wrong with ANY and EVERY jury verdict. The idea that something has to be "perfect" in order for it to be valid is only true on the PLANET OF THE ROBOTS.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
Who said the Freeh report has to be 100% correct? Last I checked, the NCAA has never claimed to be a criminal court. They don't have to PROVE anyone guilty. All they have to do is establish the liability of the university in this case. Any fool (even you) can see that the university, from the football coach, to the AD to the President of Penn St. were liable in the rape of children on campus after 1998, and certainly after 2001. This is why Penn St. will settle all civil claims out of court, as even they know they were liable after those incidents.
